caldrail

This is interesting, because traditionally a roman soldier who breaks ranks like this without orders is liable for execution. This was certainly true in the mid-republican period.

Gaah! No way! First of all Rushey Platt is an independent peanut republic, not a mere shire. Secondly, its a rainforest in Darkest Wiltshire, not a ford, and thirdly, it in no way resembles a borough. The proper english name for Rushey Platt is... well... Rushey Platt. Actually, to be strictly accurate, Rushey Platt was once a county parish (and a village?) down the hill from a small market town called Swindon in days of yore. Rushey refers to the natural marshland that once dominated the area, and there's still a small corner of it left as a nature reserve down by the Wilts & Berks canal. The site of Ladds Mill is now a pub. Much of the area was owned by Rushey Platt farm, whose cottage still stands in the corner of a small scrapyard at the back of a garage in a trading estate, on the site of the sawmill that traded lumber up until the 1970's. Allotment gardens and a ghastly new housing estate have filled the rmaining land. The Great Western mainline from London to Bristol is still in use, but the line that crossed over it, the Midland & South West Junction Railway, has long since disappeared and partly converted to a cycle track. The junction between the lines was right next to Rushey Platt Farm and the remains of the old goods station there are still visible. The escarpment of Okus is just across the canal to the northeast, where there was once a roman farmstead. Any questions?

The tv weather warning was very clear. Rainclouds moving into cold air right over Rushey Platt. Snow! Now since England is the one country in the world totally unable to cope with this phenomenon I decided to take precautions against inclement weather. Pointless. As usual, the snow avoided Rushey Platt like the plague. This always seems to happen. Some years ago the whole country was inundated with snowdrifts up to 6' deep - but not Rushey Platt, blissfully clear of anything remotely resembling a snowflake. It never snows in the rainforests of Darkest Wiltshire! Yesterday was Back To Work Day. Its that one day of the year that no-one ever discusses. Even better, it was Visit From The Auditor Day too. The young gentleman turned up in a suit that was probably fashionable two hundred years ago, looking very conspicuous in a warehouse enviroment. Needless to say, our rapid enforced move from The Hangar was the root cause of considerable embarrasement... On the way home today I got a toot from UT, driving past in his faithful flatbed van. Nice to see you're still out there UT, but where's Lord H? Surely he's not still ferreting? Also, walking along a footpath behind a car factory, I spot the working of our local scrap dealer. A long line of american style railroad gondolas waiting to be picked up with their loads of scrap metal, plus a passing Vauxhall Cresta (one of those 50's/60's cars designed to emulate american styling) conjured up an image of US railroading. The engine driver ambling along the tracks had a lumberjack coat too, and the image was perfect. Shame it was grotty old england really... Damp Squib Of The Year Oh all right I admit it. This years festive season was a washout. I think that we must learn from our mistakes and move on. Put it all behind us. So lets get back down the pub, drown our sorrows with quality booze, and... Oh good grief don't tell me our beloved Prime Minister is banning that too? He's already banned car accidents, smoking, and eating in an effort to reduce hospital waiting lists. Or are we now going to be refused hospital treatment for broken ribs caused by laughter? New Years Resolutions I hereby pledge not to waste any time making stupid resolutions about behaviour I've no intention of changing even if my nether regions were threatened with small furry mammals under duress. However, I can be bribed, and for a pint of cider, a bag of wine gums, I might be tempted to make an exception. For one silver Ferrari 360 Modena, low mileage, one careful owner, I'm anybody's. Now that is a resolution!

Ok, but so much of that wealth was spent on luxury, bribery, patronage gifts and favours, and public entertainment - arguably a waste of these resources. To some extent the luxury market should mean the economy is bouyed up and opens new markets for artisans and merchants etc, and so it did, but so much of this cash found its way abroad to pay for foreign curiosities, silk, spices, animals, etc. The animal trade for the arena was gathering pace in the late republic and this alone became an extraordinary drain on the roman economy. Rome may have become wealthy, but it was a leaking ship.

The reason it isn't always mentioned is that this elongated melee rarely occurs. One side or the other will usually break and run long before any appreciable casualties mount up, and 'last stands' are unusual and circumstantial in warfare. Traditionally a unit is finished as a fighting force before they reach 30% casualties, and once casualties mount, the morale collapse speeds up very quickly. Regarding sources, there's actually quite a lot of anecdotal evidence for how the romans (and some of their enemies) conducted themselves on the battlefield, its just that its inconveniently spread across a whole plethora of sources. Often though a story of a battle can reveal how things were even if the author never intended to discuss that directly. I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions, just try to make the piece fit the jigsaw, not the imagination (as if I don't get accused of that!

Good question. I haven't a clue what they did and I suspect it wasn't something considered polite to discuss openly in roman society, so I'd be suprised if there's any written source on this - but perhaps someone can prove me wrong?

These days in Blighty you get nailed for driving. The government want our cash and have invented lots of insidiuous ways to catch us doing what we're licensed to do. Seems a strange though that I offer advice to an american driver to speed up...

The punishment of grunts is very necessary in roman eyes. To fail is to show lack of commitment. This is an extension of their modernesque training and drill. If you do something wrong, you get someone shouting at you, and its peeling potatoes, running round the drill square, or doing it all over again until you get it right. In terms of losing a battle, it carries with it connotations of cowardice or incompetence, a failure to fight at you best, and even though the commader may actually be at fault he cannot be singled out for punishment. Everyone failed, hence all must bear the shame and guilt.

The gaps in the roman formations were there to allow units to move and reform without conflicting with each other. In practice, its unlikely that many celts would have reached the rear of the line. The warrior ethos of such barbarians was all about heroic one on one hack'n'slash. Confronted with a roman army, the braver ones shouted louder and charged first, followed by the rest, all of whom would have ran at the romans, not past them. In fact, I can't see any positive benefit to attempting to penetrate since this was inevitably going to involve smaller numbers whose sides and rears may have quickly become unsupported. It was fairly suicidal to try it I think and even though a keyed up swordsman might not have been thinking too clearly, it remains far more likely he'd attack those within easy reach - the front rank of romans. Romans preferred to present a solid barrier to the enemy, a shield wall, easy to achieve with those large oblong shields in close order, with enough gap to present a sword thrust between. They did employ an open order too, when a looser style of swordplay was judged better, or perhaps when avoiding casualties from missiles, but certainly never when enemy cavalry were in the area. Loose infantry formations are easy to break by cavalry charges, tight formations much less so and often next to impossible depending on circumstance. Shock effect of a marching body of men is achieved with close order. Open order is less self supporting and although the formation is more useful in say.. fighting in urban areas perhaps, where tightly organised groups rapidly become disordered and disorganised, the romans had much reason to retain a close order. There is a possibility that pilum were thrown in open order for practical purposes, then the troops withdraw to close order again, but I'm not sure of the practicality of this and you may well want to consult re-enactors for their thoughts. When the two sides met, the amount of chaos and deformation on the line depends largely on circumstance. In many cases, the sturdy roman line remained tight with men rotating in to replace the casualties. There is a mention in Caesars works of casualties being pulled to the rear out of harms way (although medical treatment may well have been a long time coming), and we know the romans were extremely well drilled in formation manoevers of this sort. Once a roman unit begins to merge with an enemy the ability to react and command is far reduced, something the centurions must have been well aware of and something they wanted to avoid at all costs. For this reason, a withdraw and reform move is a possibility. In this situation, don't forget the enemy have been fighting too and are just as tired, so an immediate chase (unless they're winning and morale is very high) might not happen - they might actually be grateful for a chance to catch their breath and reform themselves. There are accounts during the civil wars of roman units doing this repeatedly between each other, then rushing in again no holds barred. Beware of assuming that there were standard tactics for every eventuality. Warfare doesn't work like this, and if you take a formulaic approach you will lose more often than not. Initiative and suprise tactics worked well during the ancient era and indeed, the succesful commanders were often the clever ones with a little lateral thinking behind them, the ones who fought dirty, or who outsmarted their opposing commander. It really is astonishing just how this one man could shape the battle and despite any relative advantages in men and equipment, could still win the day.

Christianity, for all its positive effects, was not a moral reform by romans. far from it, it was more like a marketing exercise by Paul. Modern research has shown some extraordinary parallels with older faiths and its likely that Paul, who never met Jesus and only knew of him by story, added foreign mythology in order to make his cause popular and sell it. The early bishops of Rome weren't averse to taking money from their parishioners either (nothing new there then) and one 4th century roman wrote "Make me a Bishop of Rome and I'll be a christian tomorrow". Its easy to accuse the eastern religions of immorality and there were examples of such, including one whose priestess's were prostitutes pure and simple. Elagabulus is noteworthy for the emperor of the same name. However, there were also semitic/syrian cults with a much more moralistic worship and lifestyle, albeit a bit more relaxed that christianity has been in the past. In that at least, I agree with you!

The focus on luxury items refers to those with wealth in their pockets, which means a smaller part of roman society. The poor were just as poor despite the burdgeoning economy. They may have had more free time, but did they indulge in art, crafts, and philosophy? I hardly think so. They preferred to remain idle, to gamble, and probably get drunk too although Mommsen doesn't mention that. Also, their way of life was changing. In earlier times it was a custom to have one hot meal a day, as already outlined. Now whereas the increasing tendency for another hot meal during the late republic isn't going to bring the roman world to its knees (thats not what I was suggesting at all, neither does Mommsen, and I do notice a tendency for some people to extrapolate on what I've written to ridiculous lengths). What it does indicate, amongst other factors, is that the restraint of people in earlier times is being discarded. Slavery can account for some of that, but not all. The increase in slavery is also a little illusory. Although there were high points in the slave trade as mentioned, there was always a decline in slave trading after those events bringing in masses. Delos went out of business for instance, despite selling ten thousand or so in a single day in its heyday. Also, the majority of slaves went out on bulk sales and apart from those destined for short term careers in entertainment, a lot of these would have been rural labourers in farms, mills, quarries, and mines whose lifespans weren't likely to be much longer. As for common people, the cost of a slave is probably a bit much. Mommsen does actually indicate that the purchase price of a boy was something close to a barrel of anchovies. Thats a lot of fish for a poor man, many of whom were itinerant labourers ousted from unsuccesful farms and only working long enough to pay for what they needed, which as I mentioned, wouldn't include art, craftwork, or books on philosophy. What Mommsen is suggesting therefore is that the old work ethic was fading away. The wealthy were beginning to buy support for political success by staging entertainments and since these were free, the public were always going to demand more. I'm not sure that slavery as such is automatically resulting in increasing moral decay. After all, under the christianised Rome manumission was increasingly popular to those able to provide it. Now there may be a lot of self interest involved, since this act of freeing a slave allowed the owner to appear a generous man, and also that the former slave often retained his loyalty to his former master as a client under patronage. Nonetheless, in later times the numbers of slaves allowed to be freed in wills were restricted by law. Also, all ancient societies kept slaves to a greater or lesser degree. It wasn't unusual, and no-one at the time thought anything terrible about the fact slavery existed. There were abuses of course, since any market for commodities rears those who want to exploit it without restraint. By the early Principate the rural slave barracks had to be investigated for enslaving travellers illegally, and 'draft-dodgers' were known to hide there pretending to be slaves and therefore not liable for military service. Certainly beats cutting your own thumb off. Therefore the moral decay isn't about the increasing use of slaves, partly because slavery was not ever-increasing. You see, with any society you have a certain proportion of people who want to push the boundaries of behaviour, either for profit or for their own satisfaction. Thats why socieities have laws, to restrain the behaviour of their members to an acceptable level. Notice that by the late republic the senate were making new laws for this very reason and its the common people who increasingly cock a snook at it. The senate lost some credibility by issuing inept laws in the first place, and given they were often too busy competing amongst themselves to be concerned with public behaviour, it became easier to buy the public off with 'bread and circuses' than to enforce restraint. Once a large group of people lose that sense of self discipline and standards of behaviour, it becomes very difficult to reassert them. As for 'architects of Empire', that to me is nonsense. There were no architects of empire, it wasn't a planned development of roman culture. The empire was well in place before the end of the republic (if you understand what I mean), and as for allowing the roman public to think they were free, thats not even close to the situation. The roman authorities weren't that able to control the public, or bread and circuses wouldn't have been necessary or desirable, nor would Cato have felt it necessary to issue anti-sumptuary laws etc etc. Tyranny? Thats down to individual leaders, not wealth. I really don't remember suggesting tyranny was involved. Also, one of the problems of a strong and growing economy is that it allows people to strive for luxury, which as I mentioned, can be a distraction in life. Its the major cause of the work ethic being discarded after all, and once the owrk ethic goes, then the economy begins to stagnate. The 'strong and growing' economy stagnated after all. Imperial wealth boosted it to a considerable degree but over a long period of time this growth was not sustainable, one of the reasons why the west declined. Mommsen listed what he saw as the decline in standards and manners, not the effects of trade and finance.

The police did turn up once obviously hoping to cart me away for 'making it all up'. Funny thing is, how come a car can suffer stonechips in exactly the same place repeatedly when the rest of the car doesn't suffer? That a stone scrapes away a length of paint rather like a metal edge might? At any rate, I had a public disagreement with the two police officers over it and one of them got a right lecture from me over the phone. If it comes to that, how come a car can suddenly have a deeper chassis, a raised seating position, slower steering, almost no acceleration, much reduced grip etc etc... Somebody's been having fun at my expense, and I'm left with a dead car, beyond economic repair. What are the police going to do about that now I'm thousands of pounds out of pocket? Actually they smirk when they pass me on the street. Aren't the british police wonderful?

The program did suggest that Paul, who largely invented christianity, was drawing other beliefs for inspiration and in all probability better ratings. It begins to appear like an ancient marketing exercise.

What Mommsen saw is a civilisation with some high ideals that was losing its way. The introduction of new ideas might be cosmopolitan, but it can also destabilise a society at worst. One view is to assume that new ideas are a good thing - because without them a society can stagnate (something the republic has been accused of sometimes). The reason I posted this is because if you look askance at it, there's a wide parallel with our modern age. For us, the world wars were as delibatating as the Punic Wars were to the romans. We too saw an introduction of luxuries afterward (also due to increasing technology) and have been through a permissive change in society. The role of women has expanded to fill almost every male bastion for instance. We accept this because we're brought up within this enviroment. To our ancestors many of these changes might have been viewed with horror. Remember Enoch Powell warning us of the dangers of immigration? Mommsens viewpoint is from a time before these changes occured which is why I thought it interesting. Personally, I think Rome left its rustic latin roots much earlier than the empire. It remained as a fond folk memory well into later times, the scene of rustic tranquility and honest agricultural labour being very close to roman hearts even after they embraced urban sprawl. Everything the empire was going to become was already present in the late republic and the change was happening over the last two hundred years. The senate recognised these changes with some concern and attempted to hold it back, yet there seems a certain ineptness and lack of will in the senate's actions. They've been accused of being too concerned with their own affairs, engaged in their own tussles for popularity and career, until the point is reached where charismatic individuals are calling for support from the common people directly. Mommsen of course regarded the empire as a 'bad' thing, a degenerate form of government that shared nothing with the high ideals the romans had when they booted Tarquinus off his throne. He has a point, but then, if the rule of tradition breaks down as it did in the late republic, you approach a situation where the law of the jungle prevails, and in the increasing political anarchy the fittest pushed forward and achieved domination. Now since our idea of modern society, since we live in it, is nothing like as bad as Mommsens fears, one has to draw the parallel again and wonder if the romans too decided that the declining restraints on society weren't so bad after all. Idleness for instance means exactly what is does today, that people choose to be unemployed and obtain a living by other means, often at the cost of the state. Gambling brings all manner of social ills with it. Relgion can warp peoples perceptions and make them do some very anti-social things and still believe they are right to do them. The changing of eating habit? Not terrible in its own right, but an indication of a desire for luxury, a sign that the old discipline and manners of what may seem to a golden age is falling away. Sounds familiar?

Thanks GO. Without you, the space alien plot would have suckered me in. Now I'm prepared. Interesting that you mention black helicopters because we often see one over Rushey Platt. No, seriously. After all the fuss I made to the police about my car they even hovered over me once when I was out the back cleaning it. Ye gods!!! Was I abducted? Am I blissfully unaware of being prodded with cold metal rods and sex with green alien bimbo's? Must destroy..... Woah, what happened there?....

Some of you might have seen Thunderbirds, that wonderful 60's puppet series by Gerry Andersen. Every episode some daring engineering achievement goes horribly wrong, and our square jawed lads from a pacific island rush into action with their futuristic machinery to rescue everyone from the explosions guaranteed in the final moments. Well then. Sit back, switch the TV on, and watch as the Warehouse bring in our new office. As forklifts go, this one is pretty big. It dwarfs the cabin resting on its forks as it edges slowly in through the doors. Cue dramatic music - Oh no! They've broken a window! And the cabin is too small! Its all going horribly wrong!! So faster than Clint Eastwood in a gunfight, our man on the spot, AD, brings out his mobile phone. The message is picked up aboard the space station (where that strangely solitary man sits there listening to everyone speaking on the airwaves just in case there's a chance for another episode), and another message beamed to International Portakabins. Cue Portakabins Theme Tune. Workers descend through the floor of their rest areas, others slide down chutes behind the office walls, and trees bend over as the supersonic articulated truck trundles toward the main road, carrying a plush cabin of monstrous size for those lads in peril in Rushey Platt. Stay tuned for the finale. Can International Portakabins insert the new office before AD blows his top? Civic Renewal of the Week I passed the Old Collectibles Shop a couple of days ago. In the window is a new display, showing how the Wilts & Berks Canal is to be restored. Built during the Industrial Revolution just before Mr Brunel and his railway navvies turned up in the 1840's, the course of the old canal is now part of a major road system through the town. So, in an effort to beautify the place and provide somewhere to deposit late night drunks and shopping trolleys, not to mention providing an excellent excuse to restrict car traffic in the town centre, the authorities are going to rip up the roads and put a canal back in place. The smart money is on owning an amphibious car. Or can we trust our sat-navs?

There was a tv program over christmas about Jesus, which noted many similarities between christianity and mithraism, even to the extent that later roman christians complained that the mithras worshippers were copying them. A point I hadn't previously known was that Mithras wasn't the god in charge of his faith, more of a lesser divinty sent to deal with mankind much as Jesus was said to. Does anyone have any further info about this?

A great deal has been written about the decadency of the Roman Empire. Inspired largely by Suetonius, this has long been part of the popular imagination and is illustrated eagerly by film and tv. It isn't entirely fictional given the excesses that did take place. The Republic on the other hand is often given a more saintly image (albeit a ruthless military one), where democratic institutions and the rule of law are paramount. Again, there is some truth to that, but this belies the essential character of the roman people. In social terms, populations do not change character immediately. Any change from a law abiding society to that considered decadent can only occur gradually, with the erosion of public standards and regard for behaviour. The roman people had a system of law instituted by public demand that carried very harsh sentences, indicating a society with little tolerance for aberrant behaviour and a deep desire to see justice done. These principles, indirectly responsible for the birth of the Republic in the first place, were to be eroded by those who no longer desired their restrictions or those who wanted break the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for their own satisfaction. From a stern restrictive society we see a move toward a capitalist bear-pit under the temptations of imperial gain. Theodor Mommsen, a german historian in the late 19th century, studied this decline of the Roman Republic in some detail, and he left us a number of factors that led toward the hedonistic Principate. His viewpoint is particularly interesting since he lived in a time when public standards were high, and he naturally saw events in roman history as indicative of moral degeneration. He wrote his A History of Rome from the perspective that roman history, based on democratic ideals after the rejection of monarchy, finished with the accession of Augustus. Whether or not you agree with that, he made some insightful observations about the Republic in decline. 1 - Public Acceptance of Oriental Astrology In addition to the roman gods, oriental cults were making themselves felt by the end of the Hannabalic War. Compared to roman rites, these provocative displays were adopted by romans almost as a rebellion against the dour nature of republican life, and although Mommsen fails to stress the point, it appears that (understandably) it tended to be the younger element that felt drawn to such cults. The cult of Atargatis is noteworthy as the first semitic divinity to colonise Italy, largely through syrian slaves in rural areas. Indeed, Chaldaean astrologers were making inroads in rural Italy finding customers amongst the poor, to the extent that Cato advised landlords that seeing them off the property was a good idea. Its perhaps no coincidence that a sicilian slave revolt of 134BC was started by a follower of Atargatis, a slave from Apamea. The cult of Bacchus is highlighted specifically by Mommsen. Known for its nocturnal revels this very hedonistic cult was blamed for all manner of lapses in public morality... ...spreading like a cancer, had rapidly reached Rome and propagated itself all over Italy, everywhere corrupting families and giving rise to the most heinous crimes, unparalleled unchastity, falsifying of testaments, and murdering by poison. More than 7000 men were sentenced to punishment, most of them to death, on this account, and rigorous enactments were issued as to the future; yet they did not succeed in repressing the system, and six years later (180BC) the magistrate to whom the matter fell complained that more than 3000 men more had been condemned and still there appeared no end of the evil. A History of Rome - Theodor Mommsen 2 - Emancipation of Women Under roman tradition a woman was either the property of her father, guardian, or husband. She had no property nor rights of management. However, women were increasingly attempting to rid themselves of guardianship and assume responsibility for property. Mock marriages for this purpose were increasingly common. So much wealth had been collected in womens hands that in 169BC the senate ruled against the naming of women as heirs. They were beginning to have a will of their own public matters and statues of women were being erected. To our eyes this all seems a chauvanistic attitude, yet it shouldn't be dismissed since this was a fundamental change in social emphasis, one immediately obvious to a historian in a society yet to adopt the same changes. 3 - Availability of Luxury Items Luxury items, for all their attractiveness, distract attention from more important day to day matters, not to mention the cash it takes to purchase them. Following the defeat at Cannae a law against such things as gold ornaments, colourful clothes, and chariots was passed. After peace was achieved in 195BC these laws were overturned. Furniture, clothes, jewelry, cutlery, carpets, all in increasing opulence were finding their way into roman hands. It was also noticeable that women were a major force in overturning these restrictions. Its highly likely that prices for these items increased with demand. 4 - Changes of Eating Habit The romans had for a long time restricted themselves to one hot meal a day, prepared more often than not by the women of the house. These habits changed after the Punic Wars as increasingly a second hot meal was prepared, increasingly by cooks either hired or resident as slaves. Specialisation of cookery meant that baker-shops were established, and later, this specialisation would remove much of the cookery from even common people in the city of Rome altogether. Literature on the art of good eating emerges in line with importation of foreign delicacies. We also now know just how prevalent roman fast food was to become, and this must have emerged in the late Republic as a convenient way to satisfy hunger for people too busy with business to concern themselves with family meals. 5 - Fondness for Gambling It must be said, the romans were keen gamblers. It is true that dice games were present in roman society very early on, yet after the Punic Wars the extent of such pleasures had reached the point where legislation was drafted against it. 6 - Ever More Idleness It was observed toward the end of the Republic that romans were less willing to work, preferring to remain idle. This must have been accentuated by the influx of unemployed farmers ousted by competition with larger estates and their slave labour. Cato proposed to have the market paved with pointed stones to urge people to follow their direction, and as with so many of his laws, this was not taken seriously by common people. Its an interesting point that if such people were able to live without earning wages, they must have secured an easier source of income. For some this was done via patronage by begging from their social betters. For others, it must have been something less legal or socially acceptable. Mommsen himself stated that - When a man no longer finds enjoyment in work, and works merely in order to attain as quickly as possible to enjoyment, it is a mere accident that he does not become a criminal. 7 - Demand For Entertainment Roman festivals were increasing in length and number. Gladiatorial combat, introduced into the Forum in 264BC, was also more prevalent and so too were private viewings of their fights. These formal dinner parties were now fashionable, a chance to indulge and impress with displays of luxuries. Entertainers were hired for these occasions. Whereas once a sing-song and a poetic recitation were enough, now it was more important to thrill and suprise their guests with novelties. Greek athletes, previously sneered at for their un-roman nakedness, were introduced in 186BC as entertainment alongside the native wrestlers and boxers. The greek style pancration, a form of no-holds-barred fighting, was also finding a firm foothold in roman culture. Hunting foxes and hares, once a rural community pastime, had been transfered to the arena and was beginning to establish the empire-wide commercial enterprise to entertain the public with displays of exotic beasts and their demise. Whereas once a consul of Rome had divorced his wife for attending funeral games in 268BC, by the late Republic laws were enacted prohibiting the importation of wild beats to Rome, and forbidding gladiators from public festivals. Needless to say, commercial pressure and the public demand for entertainment overcame these restrictions. Animal baiting was held back for many years, yet it was noticed that artistic entertainments did not satisfy the public. At triumphal games in 167BC, greek flute players were ordered to down their instruments and begin boxing, to the immense pleasure of their previously bored audience. 8 - Love of Money Paul stated that the love of money was the root of all evil, and in the romans, the desire to be wealthy did indeed flower. With luxuries and influence available it was only a matter of cash to obtain them. For luxuries, this meant a great deal of it, which was another motive for obtaining them, since the display of luxury living was indicative of your wealth and hence standing in the roman community. The definition of social status by wealth was inherited from the greeks with the hoplite citizen army, a system by which a man purchased his own equipment and thus his military status, something further reinforced by the organisation of the popular voting assemblies and the restrictions of entry into the senate. Needless to say, this coloured the attitude of romans and it was reported that more and more marriages were made as financial speculation, so much so that marrriage presents were refused legal validity. The romans believed in caveat emptor (Let the buyer beware) and did so for a reason. It was becoming common practice to 'bend' the law to achieve financial success and even personal relationships were geared to this end. Money had become everything. Notice that violence isn't on the list. It might be that Mommsen considered violence, so endemic in roman character, as a symptom of the roman malaise rather than a cause. Perhaps the most interesting exclusion from this list of factors given by Mommsen is promiscuity. The ready availability and cheap price of prostitutes by the time of the Principate is well known. This must have been true of the late republic too, and its as well to recall that in the slave markets of Delos, some ten thousand people were brought in and sold the same day during that period. Mommsen does mention the increasing possession of child slaves as pets, and although the modern perspective is deeply suspicious of such things there is no direct evidence of sexual intent - though given human nature paedophilia must have existed. Mommsen has outlined how personal relationships of all kinds were changing with free time, wealth, and moral expectation. The family, such a basic foundation in roman culture, was becoming a tool for social and personal advancement in a very cynical manner. Rome had become an enviroment where keeping up with the Jonesii was a primary motivation. As Rome became successful, the potential rewards had made the romans ever more competitive. Is it so suprising then that at the very end of the Roman Republic, when individuals amassed military and financial power, that the temptation to use it for absolute power in contravention of roman tradition became unavoidable?

But not in the legions I'm afraid. That was a preserve for men, and only those with an acceptable background, temperament, and physique. Since women were traditionally the property of a father/guardian/husband, how could they properly fit in? In any case, a woman could well have been a distraction. The sort of concerns that modern armies have for women in the front line were even more true back then. However - women slaves of ordinary soldiers are a possibility although I've seen absolutely no evidence for that. The roman legions were an enviroment all of themselves, a world apart, in some ways above civilian law, with a regime for hard physical training and labour that doesn't suit the average female, particularly one brought up not to think or do as men.

Its getting dangerous walking to and from work. That car salesman is watching me walk past like a predator on the african savanna under the shade of a tree. Quick Caldrail, avert your eyes, he'll think your wallet is open.... I've passed Santa on the street. looking very dapper, even effete without his usual white beard, and obviously on a diet. I think its like any celebrity, downdressing to avoid the publics attention. Is it just me, or is this going to be the dullest christmas ever? usually at this time of year I get idiotic smiles and seasonal greetings from complete strangers, but not this time. Everyone just wanders around looking aimless. Has the government finally achieved its aim of turning us into robots, bereft of instructions on what to do during the festive season? Perhaps this is some subtle government strategy to support our ailing prime minister, GB, who clings to power like a child about to be stripped of his toy. Anyhow, regardless of government policy and religious dogma, Have a merry xmas everyone. Except GB, who really does need to ask us whether he can play at Number 10. Quote of the Week "Floods should be treated like terrorism" said an author recently. Oh? Does that mean I have to take more care running the bath? Am I at risk of SAS and SWAT teams bursting through my bathroom window with stun grenades, pointing real live pistols at my head, and screaming "TURN THAT TAP OFF NOW!!!!" Does this mean that sewage workers will receive medals for bravery? Will the army mount patrols every time it rains? Or will our nanny-state government offer VIP's security teams to ward off puddles? Wellies are not enough protection these days, we demand fast, armed responses to water escaping our rivers. Didn't Canute try this once?

Wow, Neph, thats really digging the deep. One might suspect you're a closet Who fan? Don't worry, your secret is safe with me. However, you might like to know that there's rumours the modern doctor (David Tennant) is due to revisit Rome. Believe you me, its going to make the 1965 episode look like a fly on the wall documentary. Order your popcorn now while stocks last! For an atmospheric depiction of the Roman Empire, Caligula has to be the absolute worst. Wooden acting, cheap sets, and a cast of actors who look uncormfortable at having to pay the bills by appearing in a soft *or* movie.

The romans were indiscrimate butchers whenever it suited them. Crassus nailed up six thousand rebels for a reason. Galba slaughtered nine thousand lusitanians and enslaved more than twenty thousand others to seal his victory. It didn't matter what the senate thought, these people did it anyway. Even Galba, dragged in front of the senate for his actions, was let off by the expedient of parading his upset kids in front of them. Incorrect. It was a matter of military policy adopted by roman commanders. The romans legionaries were brutal men. They had to be, and there's planty of anecdotal evidence of their use of violence against ordinary citizens. Slave taking is common practice in human societies and the romans were no exception. The ancient world accepted slavery as normal activity. I'm not aware of any ancient society that didn't. No, some romans were rational enough. Others weren't. Of course greed helps, and this is a primary motive for territorial gain, in terms of resources, markets, taxes, and booty (including slaves I notice). In any case, the romans were not building an empire for rational reasons. Many of those involved in its expansion were doing so for selfish reasons or were acting on behalf of those with these motives. Power, glory, wealth - all availble to those who took the risks and won. It isn't suprising there were bad apples in roman society really. After all, brute force was nothing unusual to romans who tolerated such behaviour in daily life and always had.

I'll bump into things if I don't. Looks like I'm going to be a pedestrian for a long time to come.

Tell yer what, when he drops the Modena off I'll remind him then

A prisoner was treated according to his utility. As Nephele suggests, an influential leader might be useful as a hostage in some circumstances - there was no guarantee, nor any he would survive if the romans got what they wanted. Some were used as examples, such as Vercingetorix, who was eventually bumped off when his usefulness was over. ordinary people might be slaughtered on the spot, and the taking of prisoners wasn't roman policy, although obviously it happened, and selling them into slavery must have been a nice little earner - which was probably a primary motive for taking prisoners in the first place.